Quote:
|
It does occur in the UK that self-defense acts resulting in the death of the attacker lead to murder charges and conviction. While not against the law, use of deadly force in self-defense is dodgy in the UK.
|
That would be more of a generalisation and stereotype.
It is true that certain publications like to highlight such cases and they do occur, to say that they always end up as the victom going down for life is not true.
Just recently, there was a case of a man that stabbed and killed one of two burglars and he was acquitted. I would say that there is a pretty immediate bias against firearms, and so if you were to use one in self defence, then already the odds are against you: so much for the objectivity of the law.... So in that respect your assertion could be seen as correct.
Also if there is a death involved clearly there needs to be an investigation. However, it still enrages me that if someone defends their property, self or family and the criminal is wounded in the process, that the victim then gets in trouble. Stay the f*** off my property, don't try to hurt me or my family, then you won't get yourself killed.... It's not rocket science.
If something befalls a criminal when they are committing a crime, well tough... don't commit the crime, genius!!
As has been the case in recent years/decades, it is often one well publicised event that then gets an express law pushed through parliament to appease te public and claim action being taken.
The classic case that I remember last starting this debate is the Tony Martin case where a young lad was shot with a shotgun when in the Martin property. Martin was charged and ultimately convicted, but IIRR, it came to light that the lad was leaping from a window to escape the home, and so there was not threat to Martin's well-being. I guess his blood was up and he fired. It was the fact that the shot was no longer perceived as self defence, but as
revenge , if you will, that got him in deep do-do.
There must be more to the case, but when I read summaries, I still feel that he got a heck of a raw deal...
What the law does not seem to take into account is the kind of emotions a victim of crime will be subjected to: darkness, confusion, fear, anger, uncertainty of the assailant's intent and weaponry...
Unfortunately, all those tumultuous and powerful feelings that can so influence a person's actions under duresss are next to impossible to reproduce in a courtroom for the jury to experience...